For Those Who Don't Understand What Occupy is REALLY About (Obviously LOTS of you)

[Bern80]

I guess a lot of people here just believe what the MSM and Right Wing E-media
tell them. This would be the only explanation for some of the posts I've seen.
So I thought I'd help! Here is a C&P from a great OWS site. It will give you
guys a better idea of why you should support us! Here ya go:

"1. We don't want to End Capitalism, We Want to End Corporatacracy.

First, let's make it clear, This is a political movement, not an economic
revolt. We want to end the control of our government by Multi-National
Corporations. This is Issue Number One for everyone I've spoken to in Occupy
Wall Street.

Not one Occupier I know of, wants to turn us into the former Soviet Union (although just like the TP, every movement has it's fringe and the MSM loves to find them). We
don't want to end the economic system which allows people to buy the goods of
their choice. But we do want to end a corrupt political system which allows
Multi-National Corporations to buy the politicians of their choice. So the
single most important theme is Taking control of our government away from
Corporations and putting it back into the hands of We the People.

2. We won't tolerate a government that rewards corporate incompetence, greed and
fraud. No More Bank Bailouts.

The banks bought our government and then, after they lined their pockets with
the wealth of our nation, they blackmailed the government into giving them even
MORE money "In order to keep the economy from collapsing". Right. Then, instead
of making or refinancing home loans, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and
others spent our money on business mergers & acquisitions to benefit the 1%. Oh,
and of course, they paid themselves million dollar bonuses with our money.

We want to set a deadline for payback of existing bailouts. Any company that has
not fully repaid all monies by the deadline, should be broken up so that they
are no longer "too big to fail".

3. We want the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed immediately.
For those of you unfamiliar with it: After the Great Depression, congress passed
the Glass-Steagal act to make sure that banks would never take stupid risks or
use corrupt practices to send the country into another Depression. Then 60 years
later, the banks and companies that bought and paid for Republican Senators Bill
Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley told them that Glass-Steagal was interfering
with their ability to swindle the American Public. Their masters told these
senators to pass a bill that would NOT ONLY allow them to gamble foolishly again
with American Tax-Payer money - they wanted complete control of our Financial
System by being able OWN both stock brokerages and Insurance Companies too.
Then, once their cohorts completed the creation of what's called a "FIRE
Economy" (an economy based on Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) in America, they
would control everything.

Of course the Senators bowed to their masters and Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed
with a super-majority that was veto-proof. If it had not been passed, NOT ONE
BANK would have needed bailout money because they would have been prohibited
from investing in the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Market.

Some people say we should let "The Market" regulate itself. Are the Banksters
worthy of the trust that was given to them under this law? Here's an example:
Citibank is on trial right now.
While they were selling over $500 MILLION dollars worth of those
toxic mortgage securities to the 99% as a good investment, they were betting the
securities would fail by "Short-Selling" at the same time. In other words, while
they sold your parents these securities for their retirement, they made a bet
the securities would fail - and earned over $140M dollars by doing so. Citibank
is currently offering to pay back about half the money they defrauded out of
regular people as long as no one from the bank goes to jail or even loses their
job. Guess what? The government is going for it. Why? Because the 1% doesn't
have to pay for their crimes. We do. In this case, WE'RE paying their $285M fee
with the bailout money they were given. And people wonder why we're mad."

That's just a small part of the REAL message of OWS. it's a little bit different
than what the SpinDoctors of the MSM and Right Wing media talk about or allow
you to see, isn't it?

The Whole World is watching and listening to our message. Foreign stations give more accurate coverage than FOX - who still spews BS about wanting Socialism and anarchy.

Here is an example of the more accurate foreign coverage of our message:

Occupy Wall Street Exposes Enormous Corruption Between Government and Corporations - YouTube

why didn't you mention unions and their ability to buy demoncrat politicians? inquiring minds wanna know.

Supreme Court gave them that ability at the same time they gave it to corporations. whats your point?

I believe the point is the OWSers are hypocrites until they show they want ALL corporate influence on government abolished.

 

[Annie]

I've got to say I'm enthralled at the reactions of those that are obviously embarrassed by the reality of those folks calling themselves the OWS. They are Marxists, whether or not they know it, likely don't know. The apologists do and recognize the problem.

 

[Big Fitz]

I guess a lot of people here just believe what the MSM and Right Wing E-media
tell them. This would be the only explanation for some of the posts I've seen.
So I thought I'd help! Here is a C&P from a great OWS site. It will give you
guys a better idea of why you should support us! Here ya go:

"1. We don't want to End Capitalism, We Want to End Corporatacracy.

First, let's make it clear, This is a political movement, not an economic
revolt. We want to end the control of our government by Multi-National
Corporations. This is Issue Number One for everyone I've spoken to in Occupy
Wall Street.

Not one Occupier I know of, wants to turn us into the former Soviet Union (although just like the TP, every movement has it's fringe and the MSM loves to find them). We
don't want to end the economic system which allows people to buy the goods of
their choice. But we do want to end a corrupt political system which allows
Multi-National Corporations to buy the politicians of their choice. So the
single most important theme is Taking control of our government away from
Corporations and putting it back into the hands of We the People.

2. We won't tolerate a government that rewards corporate incompetence, greed and
fraud. No More Bank Bailouts.

The banks bought our government and then, after they lined their pockets with
the wealth of our nation, they blackmailed the government into giving them even
MORE money "In order to keep the economy from collapsing". Right. Then, instead
of making or refinancing home loans, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and
others spent our money on business mergers & acquisitions to benefit the 1%. Oh,
and of course, they paid themselves million dollar bonuses with our money.

We want to set a deadline for payback of existing bailouts. Any company that has
not fully repaid all monies by the deadline, should be broken up so that they
are no longer "too big to fail".

3. We want the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed immediately.
For those of you unfamiliar with it: After the Great Depression, congress passed
the Glass-Steagal act to make sure that banks would never take stupid risks or
use corrupt practices to send the country into another Depression. Then 60 years
later, the banks and companies that bought and paid for Republican Senators Bill
Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley told them that Glass-Steagal was interfering
with their ability to swindle the American Public. Their masters told these
senators to pass a bill that would NOT ONLY allow them to gamble foolishly again
with American Tax-Payer money - they wanted complete control of our Financial
System by being able OWN both stock brokerages and Insurance Companies too.
Then, once their cohorts completed the creation of what's called a "FIRE
Economy" (an economy based on Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) in America, they
would control everything.

Of course the Senators bowed to their masters and Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed
with a super-majority that was veto-proof. If it had not been passed, NOT ONE
BANK would have needed bailout money because they would have been prohibited
from investing in the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Market.

Some people say we should let "The Market" regulate itself. Are the Banksters
worthy of the trust that was given to them under this law? Here's an example:
Citibank is on trial right now.
While they were selling over $500 MILLION dollars worth of those
toxic mortgage securities to the 99% as a good investment, they were betting the
securities would fail by "Short-Selling" at the same time. In other words, while
they sold your parents these securities for their retirement, they made a bet
the securities would fail - and earned over $140M dollars by doing so. Citibank
is currently offering to pay back about half the money they defrauded out of
regular people as long as no one from the bank goes to jail or even loses their
job. Guess what? The government is going for it. Why? Because the 1% doesn't
have to pay for their crimes. We do. In this case, WE'RE paying their $285M fee
with the bailout money they were given. And people wonder why we're mad."

That's just a small part of the REAL message of OWS. it's a little bit different
than what the SpinDoctors of the MSM and Right Wing media talk about or allow
you to see, isn't it?

The Whole World is watching and listening to our message. Foreign stations give more accurate coverage than FOX - who still spews BS about wanting Socialism and anarchy.

Here is an example of the more accurate foreign coverage of our message:

Occupy Wall Street Exposes Enormous Corruption Between Government and Corporations - YouTube

Oh joy!

"Don't listen to the news! Here, listen to our convenient propaganda sites that make us look rosy and noble!"

Who're you going to believe, your lyin' eyes or us?

 

[chanel]

This about sums it up:

 

[JoeB131]

I guess a lot of people here just believe what the MSM and Right Wing E-media
tell them. This would be the only explanation for some of the posts I've seen.
So I thought I'd help! Here is a C&P from a great OWS site. It will give you
guys a better idea of why you should support us! Here ya go:

"1. We don't want to End Capitalism, We Want to End Corporatacracy.

First, let's make it clear, This is a political movement, not an economic
revolt. We want to end the control of our government by Multi-National
Corporations. This is Issue Number One for everyone I've spoken to in Occupy
Wall Street.

Not one Occupier I know of, wants to turn us into the former Soviet Union (although just like the TP, every movement has it's fringe and the MSM loves to find them). We
don't want to end the economic system which allows people to buy the goods of
their choice. But we do want to end a corrupt political system which allows
Multi-National Corporations to buy the politicians of their choice. So the
single most important theme is Taking control of our government away from
Corporations and putting it back into the hands of We the People.

2. We won't tolerate a government that rewards corporate incompetence, greed and
fraud. No More Bank Bailouts.

The banks bought our government and then, after they lined their pockets with
the wealth of our nation, they blackmailed the government into giving them even
MORE money "In order to keep the economy from collapsing". Right. Then, instead
of making or refinancing home loans, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and
others spent our money on business mergers & acquisitions to benefit the 1%. Oh,
and of course, they paid themselves million dollar bonuses with our money.

We want to set a deadline for payback of existing bailouts. Any company that has
not fully repaid all monies by the deadline, should be broken up so that they
are no longer "too big to fail".

3. We want the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed immediately.
For those of you unfamiliar with it: After the Great Depression, congress passed
the Glass-Steagal act to make sure that banks would never take stupid risks or
use corrupt practices to send the country into another Depression. Then 60 years
later, the banks and companies that bought and paid for Republican Senators Bill
Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley told them that Glass-Steagal was interfering
with their ability to swindle the American Public. Their masters told these
senators to pass a bill that would NOT ONLY allow them to gamble foolishly again
with American Tax-Payer money - they wanted complete control of our Financial
System by being able OWN both stock brokerages and Insurance Companies too.
Then, once their cohorts completed the creation of what's called a "FIRE
Economy" (an economy based on Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) in America, they
would control everything.

Of course the Senators bowed to their masters and Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed
with a super-majority that was veto-proof. If it had not been passed, NOT ONE
BANK would have needed bailout money because they would have been prohibited
from investing in the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Market.

Some people say we should let "The Market" regulate itself. Are the Banksters
worthy of the trust that was given to them under this law? Here's an example:
Citibank is on trial right now.
While they were selling over $500 MILLION dollars worth of those
toxic mortgage securities to the 99% as a good investment, they were betting the
securities would fail by "Short-Selling" at the same time. In other words, while
they sold your parents these securities for their retirement, they made a bet
the securities would fail - and earned over $140M dollars by doing so. Citibank
is currently offering to pay back about half the money they defrauded out of
regular people as long as no one from the bank goes to jail or even loses their
job. Guess what? The government is going for it. Why? Because the 1% doesn't
have to pay for their crimes. We do. In this case, WE'RE paying their $285M fee
with the bailout money they were given. And people wonder why we're mad."

That's just a small part of the REAL message of OWS. it's a little bit different
than what the SpinDoctors of the MSM and Right Wing media talk about or allow
you to see, isn't it?

]

A couple of issues with this.

First, it is hard to take OWS seriously when they support Obama, who is as much in the back pocket of the "Banksters" as you say as the Republicans are. But they'll still vote for him at the end of the day, just like most of them voted for him in 2008.

Even Bush felt the need to prosecute Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, despite the fact that Enron was a big contributor. Obama has yet to prosecute a single "Bankster". He even let them keep their bonuses.

Second point. Even if you have some legit greivences, the way they are going about it is alienating the very people who they should have on their side.

If I'm on my way to my job as a clerk at one of these banks, or going downtown to get some paperwork filed, or just want to spend a nice day at the park with my family, exactly how is a bunch of smelly, unsanitary malcontents whining about their student loans going to win me over, exactly?

 

[dnsmith35]

Um yeah. You own what kind of business now? You've operated it for how long? But you are so ignorant on OWS, you assume and project toward anyone supporting them.

Now? None. I have been retired for 24 years. Then? I was a real estate broker; the basis for my understanding of the real estate bubble, collapse, mortgage interest issues, foreclosure options etc, etc.

At least you admitted you agree with OWS on a couple of issues. Puts you ahead of the pack.

Bullshit. That the OWS accidently backed into some issues I supported when most of the OWS's parents were in diapers.

I don't believe there is a firm set of issues supported by the general group associated by OWS. I don't believe the majority of the OWS protesters have even the slightest idea of what to support, how to achieve those goals, and what will happen if the changes they claim to want come about.

So far your expressed ideas of how to achieve economic security for the masses will do exactly the opposite of what you claim to want. You haven't got even a small clue what would happen if corporate taxes were increased, if any additional costs are placed on creating the products or services provided by our corporations or business.

Your claim to want equality of wage smacks of the old communist axiom, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." It has been proved over and over that that process eliminates incentive and reduces over all wealth to be shared and simply making more people poor while enriching the elite leaders who oppress the rest. Instead of having a 1% rich and 99% poor, you would have a .01% rich and 99.09% poor.

It is obvious you did not think out the unintended consequences of your assertions, and you are a faceless sheeple following following left wing nutter talking points. Before you can debate "talking points" you need to learn what they mean and what they will accomplish.

As to what I believe:

I have some opinions which are left of center, and I know some of the more conservative patrons will not agree with those opinions.

For example, I believe we need a progressive tax system. Why? Because those who make more money get more advantage of the infrastructure for which our taxes are spent allowing them to make more money.

On the flip side, I believe those who make more money are the ones responsible for creating the most jobs.

I believe in universal health care. Why? I believe that by taking care of the indigent who can't afford to buy health care, or those whose job don't provide insurance they can afford we will actually reduce health care over the long haul. There are also altruistic reasons in that I believe all human beings deserve medical care and that all innocent human beings every where are deserving as much as any other human being provided they work for it. All innocent humans are equal in the eyes of God.

For that reason I don't shiver in my boots every time someone cries about outsourcing as people in the 3rd world deserve a decent life as much as we in the industrialized west. They don't deserve it be given to them any more than people in the US, but they deserve the right to earn it. Further, eventually it makes good economic sense that eventually the 3rd world will have their economic revolution and their labor force will demand decent wages, a safe work place, and humane hours and conditions.

I believe in a good public education system; one which teaches core subjects to all students; one which removes disruptive students from mainline classes and installs them in alternative schools where they cannot be disruptive; schools where a student is not looked down upon or graded down because their parents either can't or won't help them with homework or encourage their education. Homework is a pet peeve of mine and is seriously discriminatory to students who don't have the good fortune to have parents who can and will help them.

Flip side, I believe that every student who wishes to attend a private school which has higher standards than the public school system in their district should be given vouchers equal to the average cost of education per student in the public schools.

I believe in welfare which helps those who are truly needy; provided that those who are able are expected, rather demanded, to perform public service in return for that assistance. Recognizing that some people are poor through no fault of their own I believe it is imperative we give them assistance. I don't believe in the blame game, whereas had that person when young applied themselves more they could get better jobs, because I am aware that all kids don't all have the same motivation and the same encouragement as others.

On the flip side, I believe that slow kids should be taught in a separate classroom so that teachers can give them extra help and such that they do not detract from the education of the more bright students.

I believe that we should not waste money on defense. That said, I do believe we should have a strong military, with a serious R&D program to keep technology the very best it can be with a manpower capable of fighting any war into which we are drawn or choose to be engaged. I do not believe in adventurism, but if we destroy the infrastructure of a country we owe them the rebuilding, unless that country overtly attacked us first. Better we create friendly ex-enemies than culture resentment and future bad will.

There are other issues where my opinions are liberal and some others which are conservative. I don't believe there is only one way to run the country. Another thing, simply because a past policy did not meet with the success for which we hoped, does not mean that with different conditions that policy won't work now. Example: repatriating overseas capital did little in 2004 other than help rebuild physical plant and modernized the companies. Not that that was not a good outcome, but it didn't create a lot of jobs. That does not mean that in the current situation repatriation of capital would not create jobs now; it likely would. Economic cycles and circumstances may well need some supply side economics as the demand side policies are not working well now. The attempt to spur demand by throwing huge sums of money did not do much in the way of job creations this time around, yet some would have us double down on a policy which did not help the recovery from recession as fast as past recessions have recovered.

 

[dnsmith35]

A better way to have Universal Medical Care instead of Obama Care:

1. Place everyone not covered on Medicaid

2. Increase FICA on those who are working to cover their individual premium.
(When that happens those who have opted out of company health plans for extra cash will jump to company health insurance almost instantly, probably before their first premium of FICA)

3. Require every Hill-Burton hospital to create an outpatient clinic to treat the indigent who only have medicaid to reduce the expensive ER visits now serving as a high cost clinic for every hangnail and cough.

4. Expand county health units to provide basic care for the poor, underemployed, disabled and illegal alien who needs treatment. (Have ICE pick up the illegal aliens as they walk out of the door and send them home for major treatment)

5. Provide a basic formulary at the outpatient clinics for most medications truly needed for basic medical care instead of sending prescriptions to pharmacies.(negotiate lower prices for drugs.)

I am sure there are other things we can add to that list. But those points, once legislated, would insure all our citizens as a major reduction in cost to Obama Care with all of its "opt out" waivers.

 

[paulitician]

What are they about? Nothing the OP listed helps much. They seem to be a mixed-bag of Anti-American/Capitalism agendas. Many Communist & Anarchist groups are protesting with them. So most people still don't know what they want. All most Americans know is that the OWS protesters hate Wall Street and want to steal from fellow Citizens just because they themselves are losers. This is unfortunately the mentality the Socialist/Progressive Democrats have created. It's this sad Entitlement attitude. Most of these people really do believe they deserve something just for being here on planet Earth. Well guess what? They don't deserve anything. And they are not entitled to steal from fellow American Citizens just because they're bitter about being losers. It just doesn't work that way. They just haven't expressed a coherent message. If i'm wrong about what i'm observing,i'll be happy to listen to an alternative observation.

 

[Big Fitz]

A better way to have Universal Medical Care instead of Obama Care:

1. Place everyone not covered on Medicaid

2. Increase FICA on those who are working to cover their individual premium.
(When that happens those who have opted out of company health plans for extra cash will jump to company health insurance almost instantly, probably before their first premium of FICA)

3. Require every Hill-Burton hospital to create an outpatient clinic to treat the indigent who only have medicaid to reduce the expensive ER visits now serving as a high cost clinic for every hangnail and cough.

4. Expand county health units to provide basic care for the poor, underemployed, disabled and illegal alien who needs treatment. (Have ICE pick up the illegal aliens as they walk out of the door and send them home for major treatment)

5. Provide a basic formulary at the outpatient clinics for most medications truly needed for basic medical care instead of sending prescriptions to pharmacies.(negotiate lower prices for drugs.)

I am sure there are other things we can add to that list. But those points, once legislated, would insure all our citizens as a major reduction in cost to Obama Care with all of its "opt out" waivers.

A better way would to be end all government involvement in paying for health care, save the money, reduce taxes by the same amount, remove employer tax writeoffs for providing medical care and allow people to be paid more cash at lower taxed rates and force open pricing and true universal competition.

Then you will have people being able to see the price of their healthcare, comparison shop the competition including the doctors they see, and be better coverage for catastrophic care due to an increase ten fold in competition over state lines.

The only healthcare government should be paying for are those who are sick or injured in the line of duty like cops, firefighters and soldiers. Everyone else needs to do it themselves.

 

[dnsmith35]

A better way to have Universal Medical Care instead of Obama Care:

1. Place everyone not covered on Medicaid

2. Increase FICA on those who are working to cover their individual premium.
(When that happens those who have opted out of company health plans for extra cash will jump to company health insurance almost instantly, probably before their first premium of FICA)

3. Require every Hill-Burton hospital to create an outpatient clinic to treat the indigent who only have medicaid to reduce the expensive ER visits now serving as a high cost clinic for every hangnail and cough.

4. Expand county health units to provide basic care for the poor, underemployed, disabled and illegal alien who needs treatment. (Have ICE pick up the illegal aliens as they walk out of the door and send them home for major treatment)

5. Provide a basic formulary at the outpatient clinics for most medications truly needed for basic medical care instead of sending prescriptions to pharmacies.(negotiate lower prices for drugs.)

I am sure there are other things we can add to that list. But those points, once legislated, would insure all our citizens as a major reduction in cost to Obama Care with all of its "opt out" waivers.

A better way would to be end all government involvement in paying for health care, save the money, reduce taxes by the same amount, remove employer tax writeoffs for providing medical care and allow people to be paid more cash at lower taxed rates and force open pricing and true universal competition.

Then you will have people being able to see the price of their healthcare, comparison shop the competition including the doctors they see, and be better coverage for catastrophic care due to an increase ten fold in competition over state lines.

The only healthcare government should be paying for are those who are sick or injured in the line of duty like cops, firefighters and soldiers. Everyone else needs to do it themselves.

So you obviously don't believe there is a class or group or subset of our citizens who are not capable of taking care of themselves without government help.

Obviously I believe when you reject that subset and expect them to find for themselves you are delegating them to the back of the bus, not from racial issues but simply because they are not equal to you in ability.

I categorically object to that line of thinking. As was said, "what ever you do to/for the least of my people, that you do for me."

I seriously believe we have an unbreakable obligation "to the least of our people." And that is why the ultra left wing nutters will win this argument, because the ultra right wing nutters refuse to move to the center. In fact you make left wing politics easier to win.

PS are you the fitz of the old 3rd age forums?

 

[Big Fitz]

A better way to have Universal Medical Care instead of Obama Care:

1. Place everyone not covered on Medicaid

2. Increase FICA on those who are working to cover their individual premium.
(When that happens those who have opted out of company health plans for extra cash will jump to company health insurance almost instantly, probably before their first premium of FICA)

3. Require every Hill-Burton hospital to create an outpatient clinic to treat the indigent who only have medicaid to reduce the expensive ER visits now serving as a high cost clinic for every hangnail and cough.

4. Expand county health units to provide basic care for the poor, underemployed, disabled and illegal alien who needs treatment. (Have ICE pick up the illegal aliens as they walk out of the door and send them home for major treatment)

5. Provide a basic formulary at the outpatient clinics for most medications truly needed for basic medical care instead of sending prescriptions to pharmacies.(negotiate lower prices for drugs.)

I am sure there are other things we can add to that list. But those points, once legislated, would insure all our citizens as a major reduction in cost to Obama Care with all of its "opt out" waivers.

A better way would to be end all government involvement in paying for health care, save the money, reduce taxes by the same amount, remove employer tax writeoffs for providing medical care and allow people to be paid more cash at lower taxed rates and force open pricing and true universal competition.

Then you will have people being able to see the price of their healthcare, comparison shop the competition including the doctors they see, and be better coverage for catastrophic care due to an increase ten fold in competition over state lines.

The only healthcare government should be paying for are those who are sick or injured in the line of duty like cops, firefighters and soldiers. Everyone else needs to do it themselves.

So you obviously don't believe there is a class or group or subset of our citizens who are not capable of taking care of themselves without government help.

Obviously I believe when you reject that subset and expect them to find for themselves you are delegating them to the back of the bus, not from racial issues but simply because they are not equal to you in ability.

I categorically object to that line of thinking. As was said, "what ever you do to/for the least of my people, that you do for me."

I seriously believe we have an unbreakable obligation "to the least of our people." And that is why the ultra left wing nutters will win this argument, because the ultra right wing nutters refuse to move to the center. In fact you make left wing politics easier to win.

PS are you the fitz of the old 3rd age forums?

That's what private charities are for, not government.

Charity cannot come from taxes because taxes are obligatory. Charity cannot be forced for it comes from free will.

Secondly, nobody's need obligates anyone else to take care of them. It is up to their individual conscience to choose to involve themselves with someone.

 

[Samson]

"I guess" my questions won't be answered. "I guess."

Watch the Video:

[youtube]hZweJI66e1U[/youtube]

Obama is not exempt from criticism.

 

[Big Fitz]

why didn't you mention unions and their ability to buy demoncrat politicians? inquiring minds wanna know.

Supreme Court gave them that ability at the same time they gave it to corporations. whats your point?

I believe the point is the OWSers are hypocrites until they show they want ALL corporate influence on government abolished.

Actually, they want to be the recipients of the corruption, not the victims. This has always been the case of the left. Give me everyone else's money to spend as I see fit but never touch mine.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0]The Captain Louis Renault Award - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dnsmith35]

Supreme Court gave them that ability at the same time they gave it to corporations. whats your point?

I believe the point is the OWSers are hypocrites until they show they want ALL corporate influence on government abolished.

Actually, they want to be the recipients of the corruption, not the victims. This has always been the case of the left. Give me everyone else's money to spend as I see fit but never touch mine.

So, from old 3rd age, or CNN forums?

BTW, I understand your philosophy, I just disagree that those who cannot fend for themselves should be allowed to flounder without assistance. I disagree with helping those who can help themselves.

I believe that since the left has habituated "charity" as being a government function, there is no way we can ever go back to the self sufficient ways of the past. How do you "uneducate" a person who has been habituated to the easy way out?

 

[dnsmith35]

why didn't you mention unions and their ability to buy demoncrat politicians? inquiring minds wanna know.

Supreme Court gave them that ability at the same time they gave it to corporations. whats your point?

I believe the point is the OWSers are hypocrites until they show they want ALL corporate influence on government abolished.

If you want to eliminate ALL corporate influence on government, it stands to reason we must end all Union influence, PAC influence, and party influence.

 

[Big Fitz]

I believe the point is the OWSers are hypocrites until they show they want ALL corporate influence on government abolished.

Actually, they want to be the recipients of the corruption, not the victims. This has always been the case of the left. Give me everyone else's money to spend as I see fit but never touch mine.

So, from old 3rd age, or CNN forums?

BTW, I understand your philosophy, I just disagree that those who cannot fend for themselves should be allowed to flounder without assistance. I disagree with helping those who can help themselves.

I believe that since the left has habituated "charity" as being a government function, there is no way we can ever go back to the self sufficient ways of the past. How do you "uneducate" a person who has been habituated to the easy way out?

I know nothing of these forums you speak.

Those who believe need begets obligation are also kidding themselves if they think this is nothing short of slavery to the needy. Slavery is evil by nature, and therefore this philosophy is too.

The left is notoriously more selfish than the right as shown by charitable giving, your assessment of the situation is off. They are more than happy to be charitable with someone ELSE'S money, but rarely their own. That is neither the spirit nor the letter of the rule for charity. In colonial times, families gave from themselves directly to those who were in need. They often pooled their resources, willingly, not by force, through churches with the giving of offerings and alms to help the poor and needy as well.

Today? They've been trained that someone else will do it or they are doing 'their part' just by paying taxes. Of course, then the taxes are wasted on the indigent and ungrateful who have learned how to game the system and live better than those who have the integrity to not demand someone else take care of their spoiled asses.

I do believe you are the one in need of 'Re-education'.

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually, they want to be the recipients of the corruption, not the victims. This has always been the case of the left. Give me everyone else's money to spend as I see fit but never touch mine.

So, from old 3rd age, or CNN forums?

BTW, I understand your philosophy, I just disagree that those who cannot fend for themselves should be allowed to flounder without assistance. I disagree with helping those who can help themselves.

I believe that since the left has habituated "charity" as being a government function, there is no way we can ever go back to the self sufficient ways of the past. How do you "uneducate" a person who has been habituated to the easy way out?

I know nothing of these forums you speak.

Those who believe need begets obligation are also kidding themselves if they think this is nothing short of slavery to the needy. Slavery is evil by nature, and therefore this philosophy is too.

The left is notoriously more selfish than the right as shown by charitable giving, your assessment of the situation is off. They are more than happy to be charitable with someone ELSE'S money, but rarely their own. That is neither the spirit nor the letter of the rule for charity. In colonial times, families gave from themselves directly to those who were in need. They often pooled their resources, willingly, not by force, through churches with the giving of offerings and alms to help the poor and needy as well.

Today? They've been trained that someone else will do it or they are doing 'their part' just by paying taxes. Of course, then the taxes are wasted on the indigent and ungrateful who have learned how to game the system and live better than those who have the integrity to not demand someone else take care of their spoiled asses.

I do believe you are the one in need of 'Re-education'.

Re-education is a difficult task. I am fortunate to be one of the relatively successful and have been retired for 24 years with more than I need and I chose to give to those who need more and it is my choice to whom I give. But I also see a subset of our citizenry who are incapable of taking care of themselves. After I retired I went to grad school for something to do, majoring in Psychology and counseling. Part of that graduate work involved a practicum at the Masters level, and an internship and dissertation at the Ed.S. level. I did my internship at Rehabilitation Services of the State of Alabama. I worked for a year managing programs of self help for disabled high school students in the county. It was painfully obvious that not all of these people could possibly take care of themselves and if there was not some form of program to help them they would effectively starve.

I disagree that personal charity is the whole answer. It is a good answer, but not the whole answer. With private charity many are still left out. It is that subset that the responsibility for care falls to the government and like it or not, some of our taxes pay what in a perfect world charity would suffice. We do not live in a perfect world.

 

[dnsmith35]

Well you're too much of a coward to even address any of the points brought up in the OP, so let's see.... do I CARE about what you think? Hmmm.....

Like the other mindless drones who can't think for themselves, you will follow the usual predictions: Didge, Change the Subject, Project False Assumptions, Petty Name Calling, Cut & Run.

Move along little heffer. Come back when you have the independent thought to address points! Woohoo!

Obviously you did to address me... Independent thought?? If I go and crap in a corner, perhaps pee on a few bystanders, spread a little TB around for good measure- will that make me an Independent?

no it just makes you a topic dodger. All you can do is skim the surface of an issue. Once it gets a little "thought provoking" you are out of the conversation.

Few people on this forum have actually described what they believe philosophically relative to politics and economics. A general term is thrown out without a nickles worth of understanding.

 

[WatertheTree]

Supreme Court gave them that ability at the same time they gave it to corporations. whats your point?

I believe the point is the OWSers are hypocrites until they show they want ALL corporate influence on government abolished.

Actually, they want to be the recipients of the corruption, not the victims. This has always been the case of the left. Give me everyone else's money to spend as I see fit but never touch mine.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0]The Captain Louis Renault Award - YouTube[/ame]

Thats the liberal philosophy, both the commie liberals on the left and corporate liberals on the right.

 

[WatertheTree]

Supreme Court gave them that ability at the same time they gave it to corporations. whats your point?

I believe the point is the OWSers are hypocrites until they show they want ALL corporate influence on government abolished.

Actually, they want to be the recipients of the corruption, not the victims. This has always been the case of the left. Give me everyone else's money to spend as I see fit but never touch mine.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0]The Captain Louis Renault Award - YouTube[/ame]

Thats the liberal philosophy, both the commie liberals on the left and corporate liberals on the right.

Transferring wealth and printing money is all the us economy does these days. Well I guess we also trade debt back and forth.